Polls: Rubio losing support among Republicans

posted at 6:01 pm on July 9, 2013 by Allahpundit

Meh. We’re still years away from the primaries, during which time he’ll be furiously rebuilding goodwill with the base by tossing out conservative red meat in all directions, and he remains very popular on balance, if not quite as popular as he used to be. And it’s only two polls! On a scale of one to 10 in terms of significance, I’d rate this somewhere around 0.5.

On a scale of one to 10 in terms of schadenfreude for border hawks, though? Easy eight, baby.

Only two surveys, one by ABC News and The Washington Post and one by Rasmussen Reports, have tested Mr. Rubio’s popularity since the Senate reached the final stages of passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Both measured double-digit drops in his net favorability rating among Republicans…

Before the Senate took up immigration reform, Mr. Rubio was largely a blank slate, upon whom both establishment Republicans and Tea Party supporters could project what they wanted (a dynamic that Barack Obama benefited from in 2008). Now Mr. Rubio has chosen a side, at least on immigration, and as long as it is a top issue in the news, Mr. Rubio may be identified more with the moderate wing of his party…

In other words, Mr. Rubio and his strategists may be playing a long game, sacrificing some support on the right they were likely to lose anyway for support in the middle. And while his stance on immigration reform has not yet earned Mr. Rubio a robust increase in his support among independents, that could still come.

Actually, the two polls are split on Rubio’s support among indies. One, ABC’s, shows him dropping six points in net favorability; the other, Rasmussen’s, shows him gaining five. That’s the “electability” result Rubio wants from all this — trade some (but not too much) conservative support for support in the center to help him claim that he’s the one guy in the field who can unite conservatives and moderates in the general to beat Hillary. As for the “blank slate” point, it’s spot on and I feel stupid for not making it myself last week in my critique of Rubio’s Obama-esque rhetorical shtick. O himself, by his own description, is the consummate blank slate for voters; the whole point of his Hopenchange message was to mask his liberal agenda in a sunny, supposedly post-partisan, “pragmatic” approach that would attract centrists and low-information voters. That’s Rubio’s plan too. That’s why his speeches are always brimming with hyper-optimistic messages about the glory of America. Sure, he’s a Republican and a conservative (on most issues) — but he’s an American first. The problem Rubio has that Obama didn’t is that the media is lousy with liberal shills who were happy to carry O’s stupid “post-partisan” message for him without scrutinizing it. They won’t do that for a Republican; Rubio needs something tangible to deflect the inevitable media charges in 2016 that he’s the new GOP Hitler. Immigration reform is his talisman. Even if reform collapses, he can still claim that he did his part to make it happen. The media will call him Hitler anyway but it won’t have the same bite.

Speaking of him throwing red meat around, Politico reports that he might not be as committed to quarterbacking a new bill banning abortions after 20 weeks as pro-life champions have hoped. In many ways, it’s a thankless task. Even some conservative women on the Hill think the GOP could use more women legislators as spokespersons for this issue, and of course the abortion fanatics in the Democratic caucus are warning him in advance that the bill will go nowhere at all. But messaging is his thing, his big selling point. The risk of him stepping on a landmine a la Todd Akin is, or should be, small. If he wants to be the new Great Communicator, there’s no better way to ace the degree-of-difficulty portion of the competition than by taking on abortion. Social cons will be watching and he needs to win people back. No time like the present.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

And you expect John “Obamacare” Roberts and Anthony “you define your own concept…of the universe” Kennedy to gave a hoot about “natural born citizen”?

wraithby on July 9, 2013 at 8:22 PM

I know. It’s very depressing; but what is equally infuriating is that you have bloggers like Allahpundit discussing it as if there is nothing wrong with it. Maybe if a little pressure was put to bear on our judiciary by the punditry to actually follow the Constitution when they make their rulings, it would make it more likely. Instead you NEVER hear people who should know better stand up and make the point.

Wow! Wonder how poorly Marco would have done among Latino voters without whooping up his plan to give amnesty to law breakers and line-hoppers. In the poll, the sample of which was made up of 1,200 Latino voters from the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, Rubio also loses to that laugh-a-minute caballero, Jose Biden 60-28.

I hope Marco isn’t too surprised by this rejection. He could have anticipated this if he had just talked to his Gang of Eight co-conspirator John McCain. After whooping up the “We Don’t Need No Stinking Borders Act of 2007,” so similar to the current Senate immigration hairball, McCain racked up just 31 percent of the Hispanic vote against Barack Obama when he ran for president a year later.

Latino Decisions says the margin of error for this poll is +/- 2.8 percent. Republicans’ margin of error with Latino voters is obviously much larger, and perhaps, considering recent developments in Washington, more permanent than our southern border (such as it is).

Repeat after me: HE IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT! Granted, neither was obama, but two wrongs only make things twice as wrong, I don’t care whose side he is on. No fewer than four SCOTUS rulings have defined “natural born citizen” as being born to two citizen parents. He does not qualify.

SteveThomas on July 9, 2013 at 8:11 PM

Repeat after me: The Supreme Court has NEVER defined the term ‘natural born American.’

The most frequently cited case by Birthers, Minor v Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), it is no longer good law because it was, effectively, overturned by the Nineteenth Amendment and should also not be cited as dispositive in any way, shape, or form on the matter of the definition of natural-born citizenship since the Court, specifically, stated:

“These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

Thus, the acknowledgement by the Court in 1875 of the debate over what constitutes a natural-born citizen in a case involving a woman, who was born on American soil to two United States citizens and who was making an Equal Protection argument for suffrage, should not be looked to as controlling law on matters of citizenship. First, the holding – the Fourteenth Amendment did not confer upon women a right to vote – was overturned by the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, women’s suffrage. Secondly, even if the case was still good law, the most that could possibly be said of the discussion of natural-born citizenship is that it was dicta and is not controlling law. Finally, in actuality, the Court’s passing reference to natural-born citizenship does NOTHING to further the arguments made by “Birthers” considering the FACT that the Court, SPECIFICALLY AND WITHOUT RESERVATION, ruled that it was unnecessary to settle the debate and solve the doubts held by those that believed natural-born citizens had to be born on United States soil to two American citizens.

Any thought that two parents were required was abandoned in the Immigration and Naturalisation Act of 1940. Please see 8 USC § 1401 for more information on who and who is not a citizen. It is the overwhelming consensus of constitutional scholars based upon precedent and the writings of the Framers that a natural-born citizen is an individual, who is a citizen at birth.

There are only two types of American citizens: Natural-born and naturalised.

All of the following were/are eligible to be President of the United States:

* George Romney (born to two American parents in Mexico, but registered immediately with the American consulate and never a Mexican citizen);

* Senator John McCain (born to two American parents in the Panama Canal Zone);

* Barack Obama (born to an American woman in Hawaii – or, if you believe he was born in Kenya, born to an American woman on foreign soil);

* Senator Marco Rubio (born to two legal, permanent residents on American soil);

* Senator Ted Cruz (born in Canada to an American mother);

* Governor Nikki Haley (born to two immigrants [I'm unsure if they were LPRs or naturalised at the time] on US soil);

* Senator Michael Bennett (born in India to two American parents);

* Congressman Chris Van Hollen (born in Pakistan to two American parents employed by the State Department);

* Governor Bobby Jindal (born to two legal, permanent residents)

In fact, even though Puerto Rico doesn’t have any votes in the Electoral College, its former Governor Luis Fortuño and present its present Governor Alejandro García Padilla are both eligible to run for the Presidency, too (Puerto Ricans were awarded US citizenship under the Jones–Shafroth Act of 1917).

Rubio, Cruz, Haley, Bennett, Van Hollen, Jindal, Fortuño, and Padilla are ALL eligible to run for the Presidency because they will ALL be 35 years of age or older in 2016 and are natural-born citizens.

On the other hand, all of the following were/will never be eligible to become President without amending the Constitution, which I am not advocating…

* Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski (born in Poland to two Polish parents);

* The late Congressman Tom Lantos, a Holocaust survivor (born to two Hungarian parents in Hungary);

* Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (born in Czechoslovakia to two Czech parents);

* Arnold Schwarzenegger (born in Austria to two Austrian parents);

* Governor Jennifer Granholm (born in Canada to two Canadian parents); and,

Conservatives are beginning to learn, and apply, the lessons learned long ago by moonbats. Cross us and you’re career is over, unless you grovel, apologize, and repudiate your apostasy.

I have seen no regrets on the part of morons like Christie and Rubio. As far as I am concerned, they are dead. I will not vote for them at any level, and if one of them is the nominee in ’16, I’m staying home.

So he learned by watching Obama. That is a resume enhancer for a dem, but pretty nauseating for a conservative. He reminded me of Obama with his incessant lying. I really can’t see how I would trust this guy again.

I have seen no regrets on the part of morons like Christie and Rubio. As far as I am concerned, they are dead. I will not vote for them at any level, and if one of them is the nominee in ’16, I’m staying home.

No more betrayal without serious consequences.

Quartermaster on July 9, 2013 at 9:42 PM

To be fair, unlike Rubio and a lot of other politicians who run as conservatives only to flip once elected, Christie never pretended to be anything other than he is – a blue state republican. I’m not from NJ, but I don’t believe he ran pretending to be a solid rock-core conservative. So, while I don’t think I would vote for Christie as President, I don’t think it is fair to claim he duped us or lied to us, and I think he is about the absolute best that conservatives can hope for in a state-wide officeholder in deep blue NJ.

To be fair, unlike Rubio and a lot of other politicians who run as conservatives only to flip once elected, Christie never pretended to be anything other than he is – a blue state republican. I’m not from NJ, but I don’t believe he ran pretending to be a solid rock-core conservative. So, while I don’t think I would vote for Christie as President, I don’t think it is fair to claim he duped us or lied to us, and I think he is about the absolute best that conservatives can hope for in a state-wide officeholder in deep blue NJ.

Monkeytoe on July 10, 2013 at 8:14 AM

I’d vote for Christie over Rubio. Christie knows how to brawl and is much, much smarter than Rubio.

Rubio probably could have gotten away with some sort of a reform concept, but he voted for a bill, that wasn’t debated, wasn’t read and is just as much a monstrosity as Obamacare.

He pretty much decided to tact to center like McCain, Romney and Graham. That would be bad enough for conservatives, but he blatantly broke a campaign promise that he made only a couple of years ago. Democrat voters have short memories, but not conservatives. He can’t overcome that kind of violation of trust with conservatives.

Rubio’s losing support among Republicans, you say? Well, it was probably bound to happen- he’s already lost all the conservatives.

M240H on July 9, 2013 at 9:31 PM

Cha-ching!!!

I’ve been talking to other conservatives and while most think he’s toast and wouldn’t vote for him as prez, I still find a few who – like they did for McCain and Romney- would hold their nose and vote for him. I did that, but I think I’m beyond it now.

RINOs are like leftists — they can’t win without lying about everything they believe in or don’t believe in.

Reagan said straight-up who he was and what he believed in. He made 20 promises when he ran for President and kept every one. And he won all those precious voters RINOs keep telling us can’t be won without pretending you’re more like a democrat than a conservative.

rrpjr on July 9, 2013 at 6:47 PM

Well, they’re like what should’ve been the official Romney campaign song, Cream’s “Politician”:

“I support the Left, though I’m leanin’, leanin’ to the Right
I support the Left, though I’m leanin’ to the Right
But I’m just not there when it’s coming to a fight…”

Well, they’re like what should’ve been the official Romney campaign song, Cream’s “Politician”:
“I support the Left, though I’m leanin’, leanin’ to the Right
I support the Left, though I’m leanin’ to the Right
But I’m just not there when it’s coming to a fight…”
ddrintn on July 10, 2013 at 9:15 AM

You’re a loser, sweetie. Every comment of yours is about Romney, even he has nothing to do with the subject.

Unfortunately – or is it fortunately? – for Rubio and the GOP, he revealed his lack of principles, or even a tenuous grasp of issues, very early in the game, thus relieving us of any obligation to elevate him in the party based on his heritage or skin color.

The new paramount measure of reliability in contemporary times is trust. By most reasonable people’s measure, Mr. Rubio has failed that test.

One can certainly say that Mr. Rubio meant well. I can’t speak for his personal motives and will generously assume they were noble.

But factually, what Mr. Rubio articulated and tried to sell was at best misleading and at worst mendacious.

What will be enduring is that Mr. Rubio cavorted with Democrats who have rode roughshod over democratic process and stopped at nothing to impose their will on America. Their motives, most assuredly proved by our current economic situation and their trail of destructive accomplishments over the past several years, is not in doubt.

So conclusively, Mr. Rubio engaged in backroom dealing with the worst our country has to offer, against the will of both his constituents, our party and most importantly the facts. In the process, he became Don Quixote of the immigration issue and displayed and abject dearth of common sense.

This has done nothing to build confidence in his judgment and ultimately provides little reason to trust him- no matter how much “red-meat” he wants to throw at party members. In fact, that’s insulting and presumes people will simply forget his descent into duplicity with some disingenuous incentive.

All of a sudden Mr. Rubio will ride the abortion issue hard (and futilely) in the senate? Please don’t beclown yourself sir.

I certainly won’t be enticed into forgetting. And it will be a long time before he is trusted with my support or generosity. He hasn’t proven himself as anything except someone that will engage in perfidy when we need him most.

“I am not leaving the Republican party. The party left me. I now join with my Democrat overlords. All your vote are us” Marco Rubio in 2015 announcing his candidacy for the Democrat presidential nomination.

Rub can toss all the red meat he wants, it’s still rancid. I’m tired of being stabbed in the back by these scum and I won’t believe a word he says.

Bishop on July 9, 2013 at 6:07 PM

DITTO.

It’s great that, finally, in present day, many voters on Right have learned to stop trying to support a candidate who’se already shown he or she is questionable, questionable “just enough” to make you feel weird playing along with them.

We did that, played along, with McCain. Then Romney, though I think Romney would’a been a far, far better President than Obama and certainly far better than McCain could have been.

Rubio may work for some on some issues. *Fine.* Fine for him, fine for them.

But he won’t be President and if some crew pushes him as such all the way to nominee, goodbye-GOP.

A lot of us love W and still do — he’s a great guy, no doubt about it, did the right thing when it counted most — but his political pool is Progressive. In fact, I think W likely has that snarky toughness about him because he often disagrees with that Progressive pool he’s from (just a guess).

But Rubio is retrogressive in that sense, he’s a product of that same Progressive pool and his failing is he’s not W, he’s more like putty.

Obama’s signature achievement is Obamacare… Rubio’s is Ramnesty. Both can only be achieved through shady backroom deals, lies, and shutting down opposition; they are both extremely lengthy and contain many subtle and not-so-subtle changes to America as we know it, greatly expand the power and bureaucracy of the government, cost a fortune in both implementation and indirect costs, and for the most part have to be passed before you can really know what’s in it.

I think it has something to do with the “color” change in Florida… It’s hardly even purple anymore…. Moving very close to blue…. Rubio will be re-elected in all probability because he is now more in tune with his State…

sandee on July 9, 2013 at 6:12 PM

Realize that this change in Florida (and it’s a big change in my experience with the state), as also in other states so affected, is due to “open borders” and lack of enforcement of immigration and abuses related to such.

Florida is largely agricultural or has been traditionally for generations. They need cheap labor seasonally, year in, year out. Disneyworld ruined the state but that’s another story, meanwhile they need the ever-available huuuge pool of cheap labor, a lot of that parttime but ongoing. Combine that with the demands for “help” by the wealthier transplants from New Jersey, New York and similar to the Miami-Dade and Tampa areas, and you get a Blue or Going-Blue state.

All that involves that labor issue, and cheap labor at that. Lots of hands, few chiefs. And the hands all vote for Socialist programs, socialist, Leftwing promises and a lot of stuff from government.

Same process ruined California. And New York. These are areas that today rely on a lot of businesses who use a lot of cheap-labor, so to speak (though it’s not inexpensive). So they coddle people who will work like that, need to work like that, and then demand the US government over time change to accommodate that increasing Socialism (increasing numbers of needy people demanding government provide stuff to them).

Ted Cruz showed up Rubio. Cruz’s gusto, his candor, his intelligence, his eagerness to speak his mind frankly and without reserve, these things show Rubio up, at least as to the whole “being Hispanic/Latino trendy guy” thing.

Gee thanks Rubio, because of your back stabbing conservatives/republicans, I have now offically registered as an Independent. Do not think for one moment you azzholes will get one dime from me in the primaries.

Here’s my issue with this whole comment thread. I get that Rubio (as part of the gang of 8) placed legalization before securing the border. That was a wrong choice, and Rubio should pay the price for that decision.

However, the anti-amnesty crowd in the Republican party (some on this thread) insist that you’re an ipso-facto RINO if you support any path to residency or legalized status. I think this is ridiculous.

The Mexican economy is in shambles. We can’t send 12 million people there without destroying the country and collapsing the economy of our nearest neighbor. We are at least complicit in encouraging illegal immigration by virtue of a collective policy that has left a swiss-cheese border in place for the last fifty years. It’s not fair — let alone practical — to deport everyone.

As a result, I think it’s fair to say that their are conservatives out there who support a path to citizenship and can still be called conservatives.

Now if (like Rubio) they don’t insist on a secured border first, then they’re just idiots. Maybe conservative idiots, but idiots.

Here’s my issue with this whole comment thread. I get that Rubio (as part of the gang of 8) placed legalization before securing the border. That was a wrong choice, and Rubio should pay the price for that decision.

However, the anti-amnesty crowd in the Republican party (some on this thread) insist that you’re an ipso-facto RINO if you support any path to residency or legalized status. I think this is ridiculous.

The Mexican economy is in shambles. We can’t send 12 million people there without destroying the country and collapsing the economy of our nearest neighbor. We are at least complicit in encouraging illegal immigration by virtue of a collective policy that has left a swiss-cheese border in place for the last fifty years. It’s not fair — let alone practical — to deport everyone.

As a result, I think it’s fair to say that their are conservatives out there who support a path to citizenship and can still be called conservatives.

Now if (like Rubio) they don’t insist on a secured border first, then they’re just idiots. Maybe conservative idiots, but idiots.

RationalIcthus on July 10, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Then we should blow them up. An illegal invasion is an act of war. How about we respond in kind and you lead the charge?

Rubio will lie *again* to get elected president. He clearly has no integrity, no honor and no sense of duty to American citizens.

I say this as someone who followed his rise to the Senate and admit I was hopeful that we had another young, solid conservative, potential presidential candidate.

I admit his lies fooled me. However, I learned from the experience.

I learned that many of us Americans will swear that we know our politicians are lying liars as surveys clearly indicate.. but when a politician says words we want to hear, we believe them – or at least don’t actively dis-believe them as we should.

Because they are royally screwing us. Both parties, just different ways.

“Losing support”? Rubio has LOST support. If Allen West primaries Rubio, it’s see ya, nice to have known ya. I like Rubio, he’s my Senator, I voted for him, but his boneheaded move on immigration revealed an agenda other than what is best for the whole of America.

…but I don’t believe he ran pretending to be a solid rock-core conservative. So, while I don’t think I would vote for Christie as President, I don’t think it is fair to claim he duped us or lied to us….
Monkeytoe on July 10, 2013 at 8:14 AM

I never claimed otherwise. OTOH, Christie has been pushed as a conservative by several Pubbie pundits, and it was clear to me from the start Christie was no conservative. I never saw anything that he said that caused me to believe he was claiming to be a conservative.

I appreciate the fact that he has made no such claims, and I will not vote for him in a primary or General election. I will stay home. We need a brawler, but we need one that will fight for the right thing. Even in NJ, Christie is a superficial politician that is only buying the smallest increment of time for the state. He is not worthy of national office with the GOP.

They’ve been trying to bounce RINUbio back. Wont happen, no matter how many bogus polls they put out

He has a trail of video lies that show him for the odius stooge he is.

Meh. We’re still years away from the primaries, during which time he’ll be furiously rebuilding goodwill with the base by tossing out conservative red meat in all directions, and he remains very popular on balance, if not quite as popular as he used to be.

RINUbio is more like Herpes than fine wine. Doesnt get better with age

As a result, I think it’s fair to say that their are conservatives out there who support a path to citizenship and can still be called conservatives.

Now if (like Rubio) they don’t insist on a secured border first, then they’re just idiots. Maybe conservative idiots, but idiots.

RationalIcthus on July 10, 2013 at 1:39 PM

First, the “send 12 million back” argument is a strawman that has been debunked many, many, many times. this isn’t a choice between deporting every illegal or making every illegal a citizen.

But, as far as rhetoric, I think what you are seeing is a reaction to the amnesty at any price crowd. They have lied to us so often and so consistently for so long on this issue (both GOP and DNC) that most conservatives have zero trust in anything they say on the issue, and know that if we give one inch of ground, they will take a mile. Thus, we take the position of no legalization ever (yes, there are some who say that and truly believe it is practical, etc., but I believe they are very few).

I know that I, for one, would support some form of path to legal status (not necessarily citizenship – why do we have to give them citizenship?) AFTER we have dealt with securing the border and AFTER we have taken some time to actually secure the border and actually begun enforcing immigration laws.

After some period of time of actually enforcing immigration laws, there would be enough self-deportation (and real deportation of criminals and the like) that the number of illegals remaining would be reduced and the number of incoming illegals would be significantly less. At that time, I would be willing to consider legalizing those illegals who (a) have been here for a long time (say more than 10 years); (b) have no criminal record (outside of immigration violations of course); (c) have not used entitlements; (d) have employment such that it does not appear they will use entitlements any time soon; and (d) have assimilated to some degree.

Even then, the number of illegals that would be eligible for legalization would be much, much less than people are currently talking about, I imagine.

the remainder of illegals that stay in the U.S. would continue to live the life they chose (i.e., “in the shadows”). That life can’t be that terrible because they chose it as better than the life they left behind and by remaining, continue to chose it as better than the life they left behind.

there is no “crisis” that needs to be resolved except the crisis of continued illegal immigration and crime from illegals. Neither of those two crisis are addressed whatsoever in any of these reform proposals.

So, yes, conservatives can be in favor of some form of legalization in the long run, but we are nowhere near a point to really even be discussing it.

Many conservatives, myself included, put forth those ideas 6 – 7 years ago when Bush first started pushing his amnesty plan. Nobody wanted any part of it. Had they done it – actually started enforcing the border and immigration laws such as to reduce the flow of illegals and result in self-deportation of illegals already here – we would now be at a point where we could rationally start talking about legalization. But, they refused to do so then, instead dropping it altogether (despite the alleged crisis at that time) and coming back to offer the same amnesty now. That is because they do not want any enforcement whatsoever. That can be the only reason. No other reason makes sense.

So, we don’t trust them enough to even discuss, theoretically, legalization at this point. Because we know they’ll lie to us, etc., etc.

There is no crisis. Illegals chose the life they have. America owes illegals nothing. There is no legal, ethical or moral obligation for America to give illegals legal status and certainly none to give them citizenship. There is also no real benefit to the U.S. to give them legal status at this point, and there is tons of downside.

I never claimed otherwise. OTOH, Christie has been pushed as a conservative by several Pubbie pundits, and it was clear to me from the start Christie was no conservative. I never saw anything that he said that caused me to believe he was claiming to be a conservative.

I appreciate the fact that he has made no such claims, and I will not vote for him in a primary or General election. I will stay home. We need a brawler, but we need one that will fight for the right thing. Even in NJ, Christie is a superficial politician that is only buying the smallest increment of time for the state. He is not worthy of national office with the GOP.

Quartermaster on July 10, 2013 at 9:40 PM

I don’t necessarily disagree with you on voting for Christie – I just think it is unfair to lump him in with Rubio as someone who claimed one thing while campaigning and did something else once elected. Your original comment didn’t say that, but seemed to imply it.

Meh. We’re still years away from the primaries, during which time he’ll be furiously rebuilding goodwill with the base by tossing out conservative red meat in all directions, and he remains very popular on balance, if not quite as popular as he used to be. And it’s only two polls! On a scale of one to 10 in terms of significance, I’d rate this somewhere around 0.5.

Nope Rubio is done. there is just somethings you do not do…like flip on a attack point you made to get elected then once elected you do what you warned the voters your opponent was going to do.

Rubio couldn’t have picked a worse thing to do in the eyes of the voters. Rubio did a read my lips moment just like Bush the first.

It’s all over from here on out by 2016 Rubio and dogmeat will go hand and hand.

In other words, Mr. Rubio and his strategists may be playing a long game, sacrificing some support on the right they were likely to lose anyway for support in the middle. And while his stance on immigration reform has not yet earned Mr. Rubio a robust increase in his support among independents, that could still come.

It’s like these people live on a different world. they have been going after thiese invisible independents for 20 years and the support never comes. It’s like how they keep trying to win PA or CA. It just isn’t going to happen by going lefty lite. Reagan showed how to win the independents Be a conservative.

people know I support Palin but if she would have lied like this to get elected then switched her promise to the voters I would be one of the strongest anti-palin voters at that point. I’m tired of liars, no honor, no morals politicians.